View Single Post
Old 04-12-2006, 12:59 AM   #80
Samuel Dravis
@Samuel Dravis
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,980
Originally Posted by TK-8252
That's maybe a guess, at best. Not a theory, not even a hypothesis.

In order to be considered, "ID" needs to be able to come up with some evidence that there is an intelligent designer.
Ususally, it's paired up with the idea of Irreducible Complexity, which makes it harder to dismiss. Even then, many of the supposedly irreducibly complex organisms that the ID/IC supporters have chosen turn out not really to be IC. Then they move to the next 'IC' bit of life. It's clearly not going to stop them to show that they are wrong in any given situation, and it's impossible to show that they are wrong in all situations.

We all know that this is just creationism in disguise... let's be honest here. That's why so many Christians are behind it (except the Pope... he says evolution is right!) and the science community is against it.
Right. If you want to read some more about why ID is useless when trying to prove God, try some of Immanuel Kant's writings.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: